ML18082A499

Motion to Strike Licensee 800410 Response to Aslb 800222 Memorandum & Order,Question 5,re Spent Fuel Pool Gross Loss of Water.Licensee Should Be Barred from Participation or Compelled to File Testimony Due to Dilatory Conduct

ML18082A499
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	04/18/1980
From:	VALORE C J LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK, NJ, VALORE, C.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML18082A500	List: ML18082A499 ML18082A501 ML18082A502
References
NUDOCS 8005300502
Download: ML18082A499 (2)

Text

/'. In the PUBLIC UNITED *.STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Matter of ) api1 13) 1q(!){) SERVICE ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-272 & GAS COMPANY Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating (Salem Nuclear Generating No. DPR-70 Station, Unit No. 1) INTERVENOR TOWNSHIP OF LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND IMPOSE SANCTIONS License TO LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD QUESTION 5 REGARDING A "GROSS LOSS OF WATER" FROM THE SALEM SPENT FUEL POOL Facts On February 22, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board propounded a Memorandum and Order directing the parties to answer the following question: "In the event of a gross loss of water from the storage pool, what would be the dif fe*rence in consequences between those occasioned by the pool with expanded storage and those by the present pool?" On or about April 10, 1980, the Licensee, the Staff, and the Intervenor TOLAC, filed responses to the Board's 5th question.

The Intervenor, TOLAC, on or about April 18 1 1980, filed objections to the Licensee's response.

In support of the Order requested pursuant to this Motion, the Intervenor, TOLAC, will rely upon: 1. The Board's Memorandum and Order dated February 22, 1980;

... ;* e 2. . The Licensee's response to the Licensing Board*' s question #5 regarding gross loss of water from the Salem spent fuel

3. The NRC*Staff's testimony in response to the Board's 5th question, and 4. The Intervenor, TOLAC's response and testimony of Dr. Richard E. Webb and Dr. David Fankhauser.

Arguement The*Intervenor, TOLAC, incorporates, the objections which were filed to the Licensee's response to Board question #5. The Intervenor, TOLAC, contends that the Licensee and/or Attorney should be barred fran participating in the proceeding dealing with Board question #5 on the grounds that the Licensee's response constitutes dilatory*

and contemptuous conduct. The response should be stricken as totally unresponsive and there appears ample power for the Board to take this course of action under 10 CFR 2.713(4) and 10 CF R 2 . 7 18 ( c) ( e) ( f) ( 1) . Conclusion The Licensee's response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's 5th question should be stricken.

The Licensee should be barred from participating in the proceedings dealing with the Board's 5th question.

Alternatively, the Licensee should be compelled to file .. responsive testimony to the Board's 5th question.

The Intervenor, TOLAC, also seeks such other relief as may be deemed just. *-**r,

'-. --. ' CARL J Special Nuclear Counsel for the Township of Lower Alloways Creek ***. ' V"'" ,,